2011 bowl games open thread

[woot]

That wasn't even close to "indisputable evidence" required to overturn. His elbow hit the ground first and the ball was secure when it hit the ground. It was a terrible call.

Agree to disagree, I guess. I tend to be weirdly objective about stuff like this, perhaps because I hate the tendency among fans to blame refs for everything. There have been several times when I was seemingly the only one who agreed with the refs on a call against BYU. If I think it's a good call, I'll say so even if it goes against my team.

In this case, the ball moved when it hit the ground. Yes, the WR also had a hand underneath it, but the rule is that if the ball moves at all when it hits the ground, it is helping the receiver secure the catch and the pass is therefore incomplete. Yes, the elbow hit inbounds just before the ball hit out of bounds, but since the ball moved after the receiver was out of bounds, the correct call would be incomplete even if the ball hadn't clearly hit the ground.

[beefytee]

I don't think it's just this year. I'm not interested in bowl games after New years day (observed ).

Honestly, the Rose Bowl is the only game I'm interested in and I think that is because the have tried their best to maintain the tradition (i.e. time/date, and matchups).

Once the kids are back in school and I'm back at work, college football is in the rear view mirror.

[Eddie]

Agree to disagree, I guess. I tend to be weirdly objective about stuff like this, perhaps because I hate the tendency among fans to blame refs for everything. There have been several times when I was seemingly the only one who agreed with the refs on a call against BYU. If I think it's a good call, I'll say so even if it goes against my team.

In this case, the ball moved when it hit the ground. Yes, the WR also had a hand underneath it, but the rule is that if the ball moves at all when it hits the ground, it is helping the receiver secure the catch and the pass is therefore incomplete. Yes, the elbow hit inbounds just before the ball hit out of bounds, but since the ball moved after the receiver was out of bounds, the correct call would be incomplete even if the ball hadn't clearly hit the ground.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here - keeping in mind that I have not seen the play in question or a replay of it. But you've got me curious.

As I understand it - the ball has to be secured as the receiver goes to ground. I get that.

I understand that if the ball touches the ground and moves within the receiver's grasp, then it is not considered secured and is ruled an incompletion.

However, as I understand it if the receiver's hands remain under the ball at all times then it doesn't matter if the ball moves. The ball has to hit the ground to be incomplete and the receiver can juggle it all he wants as long as the ball doesn't ever hit the ground.

I suppose the exception would be if the receiver is juggling the ball while going out of bounds - in which case it would be considered incomplete.

But you seem to be saying that the pass should be called incomplete because the ball moved within the receiver's grasp even though the receiver's hands were under the ball and the ball never touched the ground. And that doesn't sound right to me.

[woot]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here - keeping in mind that I have not seen the play in question or a replay of it. But you've got me curious.

As I understand it - the ball has to be secured as the receiver goes to ground. I get that.

I understand that if the ball touches the ground and moves within the receiver's grasp, then it is not considered secured and is ruled an incompletion.

However, as I understand it if the receiver's hands remain under the ball at all times then it doesn't matter if the ball moves. The ball has to hit the ground to be incomplete and the receiver can juggle it all he wants as long as the ball doesn't ever hit the ground.

I suppose the exception would be if the receiver is juggling the ball while going out of bounds - in which case it would be considered incomplete.

But you seem to be saying that the pass should be called incomplete because the ball moved within the receiver's grasp even though the receiver's hands were under the ball and the ball never touched the ground. And that doesn't sound right to me.

The receiver had a hand underneath one side of the ball, while the other side hit the ground. This occurred just before (virtually simultaneously with) the receiver going out of bounds. The ball clearly moved when it hit the ground, making the pass incomplete on grounds of the receiver being out of bounds before gaining control of it, and also the ball hitting the ground without the receiver having control of it.

I'm sure there's a gif of it. I'll look around.

[Eddie]

The receiver had a hand underneath one side of the ball, while the other side hit the ground. This occurred just before (virtually simultaneously with) the receiver going out of bounds. The ball clearly moved when it hit the ground, making the pass incomplete on grounds of the receiver being out of bounds before gaining control of it, and also the ball hitting the ground without the receiver having control of it.

I'm sure there's a gif of it. I'll look around.

With this description I'm firmly in your camp. If he caught the ball while going to ground and the ball hit the ground and moved as he went out of bounds - seems like an incomplete pass to me.

Is this the catch?

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG7Gt6C9rFM"]Danny Coale Robbed of Amazing TD Catch - YouTube[/nomedia]

If so - I think it was incomplete. Ball hit the ground while he was working to secure it. Amazing catch by the receiver - very athletic move. But I would still call it incomplete. Even if it was my team making the catch and TD.

[woot]

Here's a video of it and a bunch of replays.

[YOUTUBE]b0Xh8MlPw38#![/YOUTUBE]

[Flystripper]

that's a TD catch.

[il Padrino Ute]

that's a TD catch.

I agree. As one of the announcers mentioned, the ball was secure when his left elbow touched the ground. Then his hand touched the ground and the ball moved.

[Surfah]

TD.

[woot]

I agree. As one of the announcers mentioned, the ball was secure when his left elbow touched the ground. Then his hand touched the ground and the ball moved.

That's not how it works. The receiver must maintain possession throughout the catch. Furthermore, you'll notice that the ball isn't even in the receiver's hands when the ball hits the ground, but between his forearms. Nobody is saying that it isn't a very close call, but according to the rules as written, that's not a catch.

I for one would love to see that rule clarified after a much more firmly controlled TD catch by Michigan against Iowa was also ruled incomplete, but under the current rules, no way that's a catch.

[FN Phat]

That's a touchdown.

[FN Phat]

That's not how it works. The receiver must maintain possession throughout the catch. Furthermore, you'll notice that the ball isn't even in the receiver's hands when the ball hits the ground, but between his forearms. Nobody is saying that it isn't a very close call, but according to the rules as written, that's not a catch.

I for one would love to see that rule clarified after a much more firmly controlled TD catch by Michigan against Iowa was also ruled incomplete, but under the current rules, no way that's a catch.

Does the rule states that the ball has to be in the receivers hands to be deemed a catch? Is the ball in control at the time the ball hit the ground? Did the receivers left elbow strike the ground first? Answer the questions honestly, without your Wolverine goggles on.

[Flystripper]

That's not how it works. The receiver must maintain possession throughout the catch. Furthermore, you'll notice that the ball isn't even in the receiver's hands when the ball hits the ground, but between his forearms. Nobody is saying that it isn't a very close call, but according to the rules as written, that's not a catch.

I for one would love to see that rule clarified after a much more firmly controlled TD catch by Michigan against Iowa was also ruled incomplete, but under the current rules, no way that's a catch.

You can secure the ball with your forearm. It does not have to be your hands.

[Surfah]

That's not how it works. The receiver must maintain possession throughout the catch. Furthermore, you'll notice that the ball isn't even in the receiver's hands when the ball hits the ground, but between his forearms. Nobody is saying that it isn't a very close call, but according to the rules as written, that's not a catch.

I for one would love to see that rule clarified after a much more firmly controlled TD catch by Michigan against Iowa was also ruled incomplete, but under the current rules, no way that's a catch.

Meh, just own it. Your team benefited from the call. So what?

It looked like a catch and TD to me. It was a close call. Too close to overturn from the referee's call on the field. The video evidence was not indisputable.

[Coach McGuirk]

TD. It was called a TD on the field and they certainly did not have Indisputable evidence to overturn.


And I hate VT.